Adds nothing to the topic, but reminds of that Dennis Pennis question to Demi Moore, "Are there any circumstances, if it wasn't gratuitous and it was tastefully done, would consider keeping your clothes on in a movie?".

As for me, I'd envisage greater success if you become an actor who does nude scenes, rather than a naturist who does the odd acting scenes, if you understand what I mean. And I haven't the slightest inclination.

Zaalbar wrote:The only reason I would refuse is because I want culture to stop normalizing circumcision. Though in a few years I will look normal.

Which culture "normalises" circumcision? Are you suggesting this culture is trying to force itself on the rest of society? I think I get what you mean but you need to spell it out if you want to make any sort of point here.

Zaalbar can speak for himself, but my guess is based on the fact that circumcision has long been standard practice in the U.S. So it's American culture that normalizes circumcision. I'm guessing that, being American, he's circumcised, and that he doesn't want to become a role model in that respect. That's how I took it.

I'm not sure how I missed this thread when it was originally posted, but in principle, I'd be willing to be non-sexually naked in a movie in hopes of promoting understanding and acceptance of such nudity. But, for the same reasons I'm a closet nudist, I wouldn't actually do it.

scottt wrote:I admire what has Scarlett Johansson done in the movie Under The Skin.

I have not seen the film, as the topic seems a bit grim for my taste - although the film has an age limit of 12 years in Germany, therefore the shock factor is probably not so strong. However, the stills look rather nice.

Coming back to the question: I would not mind at all, but no one would pay money to see me naked.

Naturgesetz wrote:Zaalbar can speak for himself, but my guess is based on the fact that circumcision has long been standard practice in the U.S. So it's American culture that normalizes circumcision. I'm guessing that, being American, he's circumcised, and that he doesn't want to become a role model in that respect. That's how I took it.

Do you mean all of the US or do you mean circumcision is restricted to specific religious groups within the US & those or that religious group is large enough & influential enough within the US to cause circumcision to be regarded as standard practise within the US?

I don't know about now but it used to be standard medical practice having nothing to do with religion. I think it is/was something to do with cleanliness, less chance of sexually transmitting bacteria from under the foreskin.

There has been a lot of push back from parents who feel it is an unnecessary procedure based on old religious concepts and unproved medical opinion. As for a the discussion here there have been issues where women have been taken aback by an uncircumcised penis as well as young men shocked by a woman with an unshaven pubic area. It seems that both sexes are developing their idea of what genitals look like by viewing porn on the computer. As much as body shapes it's time people are aware of the human body and normalize nudity for a true perspective.

Naturgesetz wrote:Zaalbar can speak for himself, but my guess is based on the fact that circumcision has long been standard practice in the U.S. So it's American culture that normalizes circumcision. I'm guessing that, being American, he's circumcised, and that he doesn't want to become a role model in that respect. That's how I took it.

Do you mean all of the US or do you mean circumcision is restricted to specific religious groups within the US & those or that religious group is large enough & influential enough within the US to cause circumcision to be regarded as standard practise within the US?

I'm not sure how it came to be standard practice, but circumcision has been considered beneficial to health, and doctors of all religious persuasions routinely perform it on newborns. It is common throughout the U.S.

See what you mean. Most UK folks regard it as mutilation unless required for medical reasons. Obviously some specific religious groups do require it but those of us in the UK who consider ourselves non religious which is a sizeable majority would take a pretty dim view of the procedure being carried out for non medical purposes. It is considered assault really as the baby has no choice in part of his person being removed. There is also an issue in the UK that circumcision for religious reasons can sometimes be performed on babies by non medically trained person as many UK doctors will not circumsize babies for non medical reasons.